....the main, front page story of The Moncton Times and Transcript is a SPECIAL REPORT which is really a free ad and kiss-up for the local casino. The ads are thicker than ever, and the editorials are back to normal idiocy. Ain't nothing there to bother with. So let's take a look at the letters to the editor. They tell you a lot about the paper and the community.
The impression given of the community is pretty good. All the letters were well written, dealt with topics worth writing about, and were generally well-informed. Well, there was one exception.
One of the letters, from a radio station manager, is nothiing more than a free ad for the station, but designed to look like a thank you note. That's not the fault of the station manager. Hey, you see a chance for a free ad - you grab it. But quality newspapers don't publish that sort of thing.
Generally, though, the letters suggest this is a thoughtful and reasonable community.
Though a born arguer, I found that I could disagree on with only one letter, and only with a part of it. That is not to say the writer is wrong - simply to say I disagree. I mention my disagreement only because it has to do with bias we get from our news media.
The letter is headed "Congratulations on bin Laden". It credits the President Obama for the killiing of bin Laden. He commends the men who did it for their skill and bravery. Now, the writer is by no means a bigot or a chauvinist of any kind.. He shows that quite clearly in the last half of his letter. So why does he commend the president for his act of murder, and commend the bravery and skill of the men who carried it out?
The answer to that is in his third line which refers to bin Laden as "the world's number one criminal".
Actually, bin Laden was pretty small stuff as a criminal. He was involved in the killing, according to our newspapers, of thousands of innocent people.
In the history of the world, that's very small stuff. Mao-Tse Tung killed at least fifty million. Chiang Kai-Sheck, who was supported by the US, may have killed even more. The US, in the days of the slave trade, probably killed more than either of them. Then there were Stalin and Hitler. That puts bin Laden pretty low on the scale.
But let's stick to very recent times. Let's consider just killers. Let's consider just those who killed innocent people, and those who happily killed women and children indiscriminately.Let's consider just those who are still alive. Here are the rankings:
1. George Bush 2 and Tony Blair. Some one and a half million, most of them civilians, in Iraq..
2.George Bush 1 - as head of the CIA, he supervised the genocide of 200,000 Mayans in Guatemala.
3.President Obama, winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, who has killed unknown thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and who has ordered assassinations to be carried out by "special ops" all over Africa and Latin America. (It's impossible to get even estimates on this because the government doesn't talk, and our news media don't ask.) He also authorizes torture at bases around the world, and torture of American citizens, like the young private involved in the Wikkileaks affair. He also authorizes arrest and indefinite imprisonment of American citizens with no charge and no trial. (We shall skip lightly over Canada which happily turned over Canadians to the US for torture, and whose CSIS collaborates in the torture.)
Why should it indicate bravery and skill if a gang of young, well trained, and heavily armed men attack and murder and elderly man who has no guards and no weapons. (Not a single member of the attack team was even scratched.)
The letter writer is clearly a thoughtful, reasonable and compassionate person. So why would he have such skewed perceptions of bin Laden, the Bushes and Obama?
Hint - he gets his news from The Moncton Times@Transcript and, in fairness. other North American news media.)
Friday, May 6, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
May 5: A brief note
There is nothing worth commenting on in today's Moncton Times. Besides I'm rushed off my feet today, and tonight is my painting class. So just a brief comment to think about.
People speak of the danger of World War Three breaking out. In fact, it already has broken out. We have been fighting World War Three for decades.
Occasionally, it's fought with regular troops and even with a declaration of war. But that's old-fashioned.
More often, the troops are not regular. There is no declaration of war. And there is no public debate or democratic vote for it.
The troops are now special ops, which means they normally operate in secrecy, in small groups, with specific targets, without anything resembling legal authority, and without publicity. Some, often mercenaries, are simply hired killers. Other are the so-called psy-ops who torture prisoners and manipulate nations by psychological means - often under the guidance of respected physicians and psychiatrists and psychologists.
The leading countries in the move to war by special ops are Russia, Britain, Israel, Germany and the US. The Russians and Israelis may be the best, followed by the Russians and Germans.. When the USSR first took control of Afghanistan, it did it with only 200 or so special ops people. Then they lost control as US special ops intervened to train and equip people like Osama bin Laden.
When the Russians lost that war, the US blundered into the same trap it had set for the Russians, using regular forces from the start..
Special ops forces arre now fighting all over the world in wars that have never been declared, and are never honestly reported. British and American special forces are in Libya. There were almost certainly there before the revolution. In fact, they almost certainly caused it. One can say the same for most of the rest of Africa and the middle east.
Central and South America are infested with special ops, often using the drug trade, or posing as narcotics police. Israel speical ops have been in Central America, rented out to the US. And there are many similar partnerships.
So many private companies and government agencies are involved, and there is so little reporting, that nobody, even in government, is in general control. Whole countries, espcially in Africa, are in chaos and suffering because of speical ops warfare. Expect the same chaos soon in Central America as the US tries to regain control of it fadiing power in that region. In fact, it has already begun in Guatemala and, probably, in Venezuela.
World War Three is already on, and on over more of the world that World War Two was.
The part of it that mystifies me is the killing of Osama bin Laden. He had become an irrelevant figure except in one respect. He was important to stustain hysteria in the US. He was the bogeyman hauled out to justify old fashioned wars that were really pure aggression for profit - like Iraq. He was the one who so terrified Americans that clowns like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump became popular leaders.
US governments needed bin Laden. So why did they kill him? By doing so, they have created an international hero and myth, one that works against them.
My guess? Obama has an election coming up. He needs to, as Ronald Reagan said when he sent a giant aricraft carrier and thousands of soldiers to invade a tiny resort island with a tiny army that was only part time, and less than half trained, and with no navy or air force. (The onlystumbling block was that as the troops were landed, they realized that nobody had thought to give them maps.) I ramble but, as Ronnie said, "American has to walk tall."
To do that, Obama has to show that, like Bush, he is ready to order the klling of anybody - (just so long as he, like George), never has to serve in action Yessir. John Wayne Obama is standin' tall doin' whut a man's gotta do. For the cameras.
And we are in World War Three.
People speak of the danger of World War Three breaking out. In fact, it already has broken out. We have been fighting World War Three for decades.
Occasionally, it's fought with regular troops and even with a declaration of war. But that's old-fashioned.
More often, the troops are not regular. There is no declaration of war. And there is no public debate or democratic vote for it.
The troops are now special ops, which means they normally operate in secrecy, in small groups, with specific targets, without anything resembling legal authority, and without publicity. Some, often mercenaries, are simply hired killers. Other are the so-called psy-ops who torture prisoners and manipulate nations by psychological means - often under the guidance of respected physicians and psychiatrists and psychologists.
The leading countries in the move to war by special ops are Russia, Britain, Israel, Germany and the US. The Russians and Israelis may be the best, followed by the Russians and Germans.. When the USSR first took control of Afghanistan, it did it with only 200 or so special ops people. Then they lost control as US special ops intervened to train and equip people like Osama bin Laden.
When the Russians lost that war, the US blundered into the same trap it had set for the Russians, using regular forces from the start..
Special ops forces arre now fighting all over the world in wars that have never been declared, and are never honestly reported. British and American special forces are in Libya. There were almost certainly there before the revolution. In fact, they almost certainly caused it. One can say the same for most of the rest of Africa and the middle east.
Central and South America are infested with special ops, often using the drug trade, or posing as narcotics police. Israel speical ops have been in Central America, rented out to the US. And there are many similar partnerships.
So many private companies and government agencies are involved, and there is so little reporting, that nobody, even in government, is in general control. Whole countries, espcially in Africa, are in chaos and suffering because of speical ops warfare. Expect the same chaos soon in Central America as the US tries to regain control of it fadiing power in that region. In fact, it has already begun in Guatemala and, probably, in Venezuela.
World War Three is already on, and on over more of the world that World War Two was.
The part of it that mystifies me is the killing of Osama bin Laden. He had become an irrelevant figure except in one respect. He was important to stustain hysteria in the US. He was the bogeyman hauled out to justify old fashioned wars that were really pure aggression for profit - like Iraq. He was the one who so terrified Americans that clowns like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump became popular leaders.
US governments needed bin Laden. So why did they kill him? By doing so, they have created an international hero and myth, one that works against them.
My guess? Obama has an election coming up. He needs to, as Ronald Reagan said when he sent a giant aricraft carrier and thousands of soldiers to invade a tiny resort island with a tiny army that was only part time, and less than half trained, and with no navy or air force. (The onlystumbling block was that as the troops were landed, they realized that nobody had thought to give them maps.) I ramble but, as Ronnie said, "American has to walk tall."
To do that, Obama has to show that, like Bush, he is ready to order the klling of anybody - (just so long as he, like George), never has to serve in action Yessir. John Wayne Obama is standin' tall doin' whut a man's gotta do. For the cameras.
And we are in World War Three.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
May 4:Moncton and Ancient Rome
Two years ago, I stood in the pit of the great colloseum in Rome. This is where so many people were dragged to be publicly humiliated, tortured, murdered and/or eaten alive for the delight of a howling mob. The mob was poor, hungry, jobless (since the bread, which was almost all the food they were given, came from the Empire.) They didn't even have to serve the Empire in the military. Mercenaries from various tribes did that.The Roman mob was useless, and every one of those miserable wretches knew it. That is why so many of them loved to see other people humiliated, to be even worse off than they were. The Roman mob was something like the audience for the Jerry Springer show.
They were useless; but they had to be kept quiet, ignorant and entertained. Otherwise, their thoughts would turn to wondering why they were so poor while the Caesar and the nobility were so rich. That might have led the mob to a violence that would threaten the Imperial Palace, itself.
Better to divert them with entertainment. That's why the emperors and the nobility happily paid for the gladiators and the wild animals for the shows in the Colissseum. That's why , as I stood there trying to hear the howls of the mob and the screams of the dying, I thought of The Moncton Times&Transcript. It is the only daily permitted in Moncton. (The weekly Snap, though non-Irving, is permitted only because there is no danger of anybody reading it and learning anything.)
Today's T&T is three quarters advertising. Of the rest, most is trivia. The editorial is the usual trash - highly partisan and showing a complete lack of ignorance of the fundamentals of democracy. Nowhere is there any discussion, for example, of the fact that our provincial budget has been handed over by our government to a big business committee.
Nor is there the slightest understanding that the recent election has to be understood as a serious warning. When a democracy can form a government with the consent of only 24% of the general population, then that dmocracy is close to the end of its life. That is not the fault of Stephen Harper or the Conservatives. It's not even the fault of the system. It's because a full 40% of the population has so little faith in democracy, or so little information that they don't give a damn. For that matter, a high proportion of those who did vote had no idea of what the issues were or what the parties stood for. No democracy is going to survive that. That's why the turnout was the most important lesson of that election.
In this province, democracy has ended by any definition I know of. The basic requirement of democracy is that a government elected by the people should have the "power of the purse". That means the right to plan spending and taxation wince these two affect almost everything else. But economic planning in New Brunswick has been handed over to a self-appointed gang of corporate bosses. For all the speeches and elections, New Burnswick provincial politcs are no longer democratic. We are into a form of government called corporatism. And corporatism was the foundation stone of fascism.
For the lack of honest and full information, our news media, led by the Irving papers, are the prime cause of our breakdown as a democracy.
The only section of the T&T that is competent and more or less honest is the sports section. Of course. If this were ancient Rome, the Colosseum sports section would be the best part. It's entertainment and it's trivia. That makes it safe.
Not surprisingly, our Caesar and his nobles are encouraging us to build a new Colosseum as Moncton's outstanding priority. Keep people uninformed. Keep them entertained. Keep them trivial. That's the role of the Moncton Times &Tribune. It works as well for the new caesars as it did for the old ones.
They were useless; but they had to be kept quiet, ignorant and entertained. Otherwise, their thoughts would turn to wondering why they were so poor while the Caesar and the nobility were so rich. That might have led the mob to a violence that would threaten the Imperial Palace, itself.
Better to divert them with entertainment. That's why the emperors and the nobility happily paid for the gladiators and the wild animals for the shows in the Colissseum. That's why , as I stood there trying to hear the howls of the mob and the screams of the dying, I thought of The Moncton Times&Transcript. It is the only daily permitted in Moncton. (The weekly Snap, though non-Irving, is permitted only because there is no danger of anybody reading it and learning anything.)
Today's T&T is three quarters advertising. Of the rest, most is trivia. The editorial is the usual trash - highly partisan and showing a complete lack of ignorance of the fundamentals of democracy. Nowhere is there any discussion, for example, of the fact that our provincial budget has been handed over by our government to a big business committee.
Nor is there the slightest understanding that the recent election has to be understood as a serious warning. When a democracy can form a government with the consent of only 24% of the general population, then that dmocracy is close to the end of its life. That is not the fault of Stephen Harper or the Conservatives. It's not even the fault of the system. It's because a full 40% of the population has so little faith in democracy, or so little information that they don't give a damn. For that matter, a high proportion of those who did vote had no idea of what the issues were or what the parties stood for. No democracy is going to survive that. That's why the turnout was the most important lesson of that election.
In this province, democracy has ended by any definition I know of. The basic requirement of democracy is that a government elected by the people should have the "power of the purse". That means the right to plan spending and taxation wince these two affect almost everything else. But economic planning in New Brunswick has been handed over to a self-appointed gang of corporate bosses. For all the speeches and elections, New Burnswick provincial politcs are no longer democratic. We are into a form of government called corporatism. And corporatism was the foundation stone of fascism.
For the lack of honest and full information, our news media, led by the Irving papers, are the prime cause of our breakdown as a democracy.
The only section of the T&T that is competent and more or less honest is the sports section. Of course. If this were ancient Rome, the Colosseum sports section would be the best part. It's entertainment and it's trivia. That makes it safe.
Not surprisingly, our Caesar and his nobles are encouraging us to build a new Colosseum as Moncton's outstanding priority. Keep people uninformed. Keep them entertained. Keep them trivial. That's the role of the Moncton Times &Tribune. It works as well for the new caesars as it did for the old ones.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
My 3: 24% of all eligible Canadians voted for Harper.
That should have been the headline on today's Moncton Times and Transcript because that's really what happened. Even in the low the turnout, he still got only 40%. It was the low turnout that gave him a victory with just 24% of all eligible voters casting their ballot for him.
That's not only a bad sign in a democracy. It's a danger signal. Bush won with 23%, and look what he did.
If you check back about a week, you will find me mentioning that I suspected The Moncton Times and Tribune was giving the election terrible coverage - and Norbert Cunningham writing an inane comment on the boredom of it all - and was doing it deliberately. They wanted a low turnout, figuring that would help the Conservatives. I suspect now that was the Conservative strategy across Canada.
So only 61% of Canadian voted in what may well prove to be the most crucial election in Canada's history. And we shall all be led by an ideologue with supreme power who has the support of only 24% of all the voters of Canada. But the headline of the editorial?
"Canadians have spoken decisively.
In further assininity, it says "A return to majority government is welcome and judged to be best by Canadian voters." In fact, it was not welcome or judged to be best by 76% of eligible voters.
The writer also says it's a polarization of right and left. Oh? It looks more like a polarization between those who vote and those who no longer give a damn.
"PM Stephen Harper's election win is convincing and the pettiness should now stop." Really. What pettiness are you referring to? The pettiness of contempt of parliament? The pettiness of undiclosed billions for a fighter plane?
I wonder whether Norbert is aware that the purpose of an opposition in a democracy is to criticize the government. And, surely, an opposition that got more votes than the government has both a reponsibility and a right to do that.
We voted in an election in which 24% was enough to put in a government. I'm ashamed to be a Canadian.
Of those in Moncton who did vote, it's a safe bet that most had no idea what the various party platforms were. How could they? Their newspaper never reported them. Now that newspaper gloats over its lack of ethics and professionalism with an editorial that amounts to either ignorance or lies. I put my money on lies.
Collectors of lies will also be interested in a comment below the editorial. It's about shale gas, and it was written by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
That's not only a bad sign in a democracy. It's a danger signal. Bush won with 23%, and look what he did.
If you check back about a week, you will find me mentioning that I suspected The Moncton Times and Tribune was giving the election terrible coverage - and Norbert Cunningham writing an inane comment on the boredom of it all - and was doing it deliberately. They wanted a low turnout, figuring that would help the Conservatives. I suspect now that was the Conservative strategy across Canada.
So only 61% of Canadian voted in what may well prove to be the most crucial election in Canada's history. And we shall all be led by an ideologue with supreme power who has the support of only 24% of all the voters of Canada. But the headline of the editorial?
"Canadians have spoken decisively.
In further assininity, it says "A return to majority government is welcome and judged to be best by Canadian voters." In fact, it was not welcome or judged to be best by 76% of eligible voters.
The writer also says it's a polarization of right and left. Oh? It looks more like a polarization between those who vote and those who no longer give a damn.
"PM Stephen Harper's election win is convincing and the pettiness should now stop." Really. What pettiness are you referring to? The pettiness of contempt of parliament? The pettiness of undiclosed billions for a fighter plane?
I wonder whether Norbert is aware that the purpose of an opposition in a democracy is to criticize the government. And, surely, an opposition that got more votes than the government has both a reponsibility and a right to do that.
We voted in an election in which 24% was enough to put in a government. I'm ashamed to be a Canadian.
Of those in Moncton who did vote, it's a safe bet that most had no idea what the various party platforms were. How could they? Their newspaper never reported them. Now that newspaper gloats over its lack of ethics and professionalism with an editorial that amounts to either ignorance or lies. I put my money on lies.
Collectors of lies will also be interested in a comment below the editorial. It's about shale gas, and it was written by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Monday, May 2, 2011
May2: Nothing terribly bad in The Moncton Times. Just trivial and boring.
By the standards of the Moncton Times and Tribune, this was a brilliant day.
Curiously, the killing of Osama Bin Laden did not make either the first page or the News section It appeared on A2, under a bigger story that Moncton voters would cast their ballots today.
That's really quite a sensible decision. Obama Bin Laden has not been a factor is causing wars for over a decade - and perhaps not even back then. He became irrelevant with the invasion of Iraq. For the years before that, the US has shown no evidence he had anything to do with 9/11 - much less being the "mastermind". He claimed credit, of course. But that's not much in the way of evidence. The Taliban tried hard to get the US to offer some evidence so they could have reason to extradite him to the US. (They weren't looking for another war after a generation of fighting the Soviets.) The US refused to do so, though it is normal practice (except for Canada which happily delivers its citizens for torture, and even helps out with it, on the basis of no evidence at all.)
However, you should read the story as an example of subtle propaganda.
Bin Laden is referred to as a terrorist who killed thousands of men, women, and children. That's probably quite true but....
Henry Kissinger was a terrorist who advised terror bombing of Cambodia that killed half a million men, women and children.
George Bush 1 was head of the CIA when it conducted a terror campaign against Gutemalan native peoples that killed 200,000 men, women and children.
Lyndon Johnson and others killed uncounted millions of innocent people in Vietnam, men, women and children.
George Bush 2 killed innocent people - somewhere over a million and a half.That, too, was deliberate terror - and it was men, women and children.
When Lyndon Johnson died, The Moncton Times did not mention he was a terrorist. Nor will they when Henry Kissinger and George Bush 1 and 2 depart this world. Not even though Bin Laden, compared to them, was a small timer.
Curiously, the killing of Osama Bin Laden did not make either the first page or the News section It appeared on A2, under a bigger story that Moncton voters would cast their ballots today.
That's really quite a sensible decision. Obama Bin Laden has not been a factor is causing wars for over a decade - and perhaps not even back then. He became irrelevant with the invasion of Iraq. For the years before that, the US has shown no evidence he had anything to do with 9/11 - much less being the "mastermind". He claimed credit, of course. But that's not much in the way of evidence. The Taliban tried hard to get the US to offer some evidence so they could have reason to extradite him to the US. (They weren't looking for another war after a generation of fighting the Soviets.) The US refused to do so, though it is normal practice (except for Canada which happily delivers its citizens for torture, and even helps out with it, on the basis of no evidence at all.)
However, you should read the story as an example of subtle propaganda.
Bin Laden is referred to as a terrorist who killed thousands of men, women, and children. That's probably quite true but....
Henry Kissinger was a terrorist who advised terror bombing of Cambodia that killed half a million men, women and children.
George Bush 1 was head of the CIA when it conducted a terror campaign against Gutemalan native peoples that killed 200,000 men, women and children.
Lyndon Johnson and others killed uncounted millions of innocent people in Vietnam, men, women and children.
George Bush 2 killed innocent people - somewhere over a million and a half.That, too, was deliberate terror - and it was men, women and children.
When Lyndon Johnson died, The Moncton Times did not mention he was a terrorist. Nor will they when Henry Kissinger and George Bush 1 and 2 depart this world. Not even though Bin Laden, compared to them, was a small timer.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
April 30: The Moncton Times&Transcript: from low ethikcs to no ethics
At first, it's the trivia that catches your attention - the royal wedding that's on both the front page and the news section, with gushier prose than ever; AND with more ga-ga pictures.
Then we're back again to the hardline progranda. It's about that busrdly expensive hockey rink our mayor and the T&T prefer to call a multipurpose centre. If this is going to be such a profitable project, why not let the Irvings, Ganongs, etc. pay for it? Then, they can have all those great profits.
But New Brunswick doesn't have governments like that, not at any level. When the owner of the hockey team wants a new arena at low cost to him, then it's a civic need, and we have to pay for it. But when it comes to giving away tens of thousands of acres or subisidizing corporate energy bills, then we are reminded of the importance of helping private corporations. (In both cases, we pay.)
It gets worse.
In its last issue before the election, The Moncton Times (which has so far pretty much ignored the election) has four pages of election candidates going "Head to Head", duking it out with the tough but fair editors of the T&T. Actually, it was five pages of kiss-kiss trivia. I guess the editors were just all tired out from watching a day of re-runs of the royal wedding.
And it gets worse.
The six candidates chosen were Liberal and Conservative. Only Liberal and Conservative.
I'm not surprised that the T&T editorial boad can be so contemptuously, openly, and insultingly unethical. I am a little (well, only a little) surprised that political candidates would be willing to take part in such a journalistic and political fraud.
So I thank the T&T for letting us know which politicians are as unethical as its editors are. (I have friends in journalism across Canada and in Asia. Some are not very scrupulous in their reporting. But even the worst of them get a kick out of these stories about the T&T).
As it has been from the start, the Whatever section is the best part of the paper. This is the section of stories and commentaries by students in our public schools. This time, in another excellent idea, they include French-speaking students.
Some were thoughtful. A couple were quite touching. All were well written. All were superior to anything I have seen in a T&T editorial column. ( Dr. Wallace's adivce column for teens is a sound one.)
I taught writing for six years in public school. I also taught it as a major part of my university history courses. I have been a professional writer for major markets. These students are good. Our public schools are doing an excellent job.
Just to sneak in a couple of thoughts on two of the columns:
1.For Nathan Tinzler who wrote about rugby - British Rugby came to us from British
offiicers based in the colonies. But it was played only by the upper classes. So it was that the upper claases in Canada made it a game strictly for their social set. In those days, that was pretty much the only social set that could go to university; so Rugby became the big, university game.
The rules were confusing, though. So they were re-written, most at McGill, to become a new game - North American football. But it was still a game only for the rich.
That's why the Stanley Cup was originally for the amateur championship of Canda. The thinking was that anyone who accepted money for playing a game could not be a "gentleman" of suitable class.
And that's why, to this day, most pro football players went to university. Most other pros - boxers and hockey players and jockeys, etc. did not.
2. For Aureli Pare, who wrote a very mature piece on putting those things we have a passion for into a balance with what we need for ourselves. That is generally true. But, if you're very lucky, you can find a passion that doesn't take from you, but gives to you.
I felt that way from my first day of teaching. The passion took nothing out of me, but added a great deal. I even did some supply teaching after I retired - until I realized they didn't want me to teach, just to baby-sit. So now I do voluntary teaching for Tantramar senior's college..
Mind you, I also have passions for painting and writing. At that point, I agree with you. Too many passions, and one does end up looking like Easter Island.
Congratulations to all you students. Congratulations to your teachers. Congratulations to your parents. Even the brightest of students can do badly without stimulating parents.)
Then we're back again to the hardline progranda. It's about that busrdly expensive hockey rink our mayor and the T&T prefer to call a multipurpose centre. If this is going to be such a profitable project, why not let the Irvings, Ganongs, etc. pay for it? Then, they can have all those great profits.
But New Brunswick doesn't have governments like that, not at any level. When the owner of the hockey team wants a new arena at low cost to him, then it's a civic need, and we have to pay for it. But when it comes to giving away tens of thousands of acres or subisidizing corporate energy bills, then we are reminded of the importance of helping private corporations. (In both cases, we pay.)
It gets worse.
In its last issue before the election, The Moncton Times (which has so far pretty much ignored the election) has four pages of election candidates going "Head to Head", duking it out with the tough but fair editors of the T&T. Actually, it was five pages of kiss-kiss trivia. I guess the editors were just all tired out from watching a day of re-runs of the royal wedding.
And it gets worse.
The six candidates chosen were Liberal and Conservative. Only Liberal and Conservative.
I'm not surprised that the T&T editorial boad can be so contemptuously, openly, and insultingly unethical. I am a little (well, only a little) surprised that political candidates would be willing to take part in such a journalistic and political fraud.
So I thank the T&T for letting us know which politicians are as unethical as its editors are. (I have friends in journalism across Canada and in Asia. Some are not very scrupulous in their reporting. But even the worst of them get a kick out of these stories about the T&T).
As it has been from the start, the Whatever section is the best part of the paper. This is the section of stories and commentaries by students in our public schools. This time, in another excellent idea, they include French-speaking students.
Some were thoughtful. A couple were quite touching. All were well written. All were superior to anything I have seen in a T&T editorial column. ( Dr. Wallace's adivce column for teens is a sound one.)
I taught writing for six years in public school. I also taught it as a major part of my university history courses. I have been a professional writer for major markets. These students are good. Our public schools are doing an excellent job.
Just to sneak in a couple of thoughts on two of the columns:
1.For Nathan Tinzler who wrote about rugby - British Rugby came to us from British
offiicers based in the colonies. But it was played only by the upper classes. So it was that the upper claases in Canada made it a game strictly for their social set. In those days, that was pretty much the only social set that could go to university; so Rugby became the big, university game.
The rules were confusing, though. So they were re-written, most at McGill, to become a new game - North American football. But it was still a game only for the rich.
That's why the Stanley Cup was originally for the amateur championship of Canda. The thinking was that anyone who accepted money for playing a game could not be a "gentleman" of suitable class.
And that's why, to this day, most pro football players went to university. Most other pros - boxers and hockey players and jockeys, etc. did not.
2. For Aureli Pare, who wrote a very mature piece on putting those things we have a passion for into a balance with what we need for ourselves. That is generally true. But, if you're very lucky, you can find a passion that doesn't take from you, but gives to you.
I felt that way from my first day of teaching. The passion took nothing out of me, but added a great deal. I even did some supply teaching after I retired - until I realized they didn't want me to teach, just to baby-sit. So now I do voluntary teaching for Tantramar senior's college..
Mind you, I also have passions for painting and writing. At that point, I agree with you. Too many passions, and one does end up looking like Easter Island.
Congratulations to all you students. Congratulations to your teachers. Congratulations to your parents. Even the brightest of students can do badly without stimulating parents.)
Friday, April 29, 2011
April 29: Norbert Cunningham - Bottom Feeder
Today's column at the foot of the editorial page is a collector's item.
Norbert is in a real tizzy because the election has been so boring and, for Liberals and Conservatives, so negative. He has the grace to say that Layton has been performing well - but the lack of grace to say he considers him goofy and stiff. (Nothing wrong with saying that - if you're also willing to to say similar things about Stephen Harper and James Irving. The ball is in your court, Norbert.)
In fact, this whole column is an attack ad against the parties that he criticizes for running attack ads. Norbert has no shown no sense of what the major issues are. (Mr. Irving probably hasn't told him yet.)
The election campaign was boring and is now confusing not because of the politicians Mr. Cunningham excoriates. It's boring because editors like those at The Moncton Times and Transcript have never informed the public about the issues, and have old us very little about the policies. Indeed, all we know about NDP policies from the T&T is that Norbert thinks them goofy. Some politicians are at fault. But the greater fault lies with our news media. In Moncton, it especially lies with a dreadfully ignorant and sometimes lying editorial board at the T&T. For example:
In 2008, Harper was threatened by the possibility of a coalition of the opposition parties. He took the stand that such a coalition was illegal under the Canadian constitution. Norbert Cunningham and the editors at the T&T in general took up the cry that this was illegal. In fact, the constitution doesn't even mention parties.As well, and again despite the views of Cunningham and his wretched paper, the leader of the largest party does not have the right to be prime minister. Indeed, the prime minister is not in the constitution, either.
The editors of the T&T certainly have the right to publish whatever opinon they like. But in this case, they were either ignorant of the Canadian consitution and of Canadian history, or they were lying. It can only be one or the other. There is no middle ground.
If we are ignorant of the issues, it's because our news media have deliberately kept us ignorant - and Norbert has been a lead player. That's why New Brunswick has a Liberal Party that is exactly the same as the Conservative party. And of all of die hard liberals and conservatives out there, not one in ten thousand even knows what the words liberal and conservative mean. And I'm afraid the editors of The T&T aren't a part of the small group that does know.
In another con game, when a handful of people held a protest about the closing of Moncton High, every news medium in the city gave it full coverage. In fact, there was no story. Of a good two thousand or more parents available, there weren't enough parents at the protest for a decent game of dice. There was no story. But all the new media ran it as the big story of the day. Why?
1. Journalists can be like sheep. They follow the herd.
2. For the Times, it was a chance to further villify the school system.
They had been running an intense campaign against the teachers and the education councils. Most of it was lies. The rest was vicious slander. The purpose was to discredit public schools so the Irvings and Ganongs and their friends could step in to suck more money out of the province.
When the Superintendent and the council chairman wrote to correct what the paper had been saying, their letters were published, and the paper laid off a bit. But it never admitted it had been wrong.
All of this time, a major writer for the T&T was a member of the education council. Why was he silent? Who put him on the council? (He obviously knows nothing about education.) Who does he really represent?
I spoke to the council last October. (Of course, the story neve made the T&T). That reporter and at least two other members were linked to corporate New Brunswick. I suspect you would find the pattern through home and school and many other groups in the province.
If our election was boring, Mr. Cunningham, it was so largely because of you and other private news media in the city. It was because of your betrayal of fundamental principles of journalism that we don't know what's going on and, not knowing, don't care.
Norbert is in a real tizzy because the election has been so boring and, for Liberals and Conservatives, so negative. He has the grace to say that Layton has been performing well - but the lack of grace to say he considers him goofy and stiff. (Nothing wrong with saying that - if you're also willing to to say similar things about Stephen Harper and James Irving. The ball is in your court, Norbert.)
In fact, this whole column is an attack ad against the parties that he criticizes for running attack ads. Norbert has no shown no sense of what the major issues are. (Mr. Irving probably hasn't told him yet.)
The election campaign was boring and is now confusing not because of the politicians Mr. Cunningham excoriates. It's boring because editors like those at The Moncton Times and Transcript have never informed the public about the issues, and have old us very little about the policies. Indeed, all we know about NDP policies from the T&T is that Norbert thinks them goofy. Some politicians are at fault. But the greater fault lies with our news media. In Moncton, it especially lies with a dreadfully ignorant and sometimes lying editorial board at the T&T. For example:
In 2008, Harper was threatened by the possibility of a coalition of the opposition parties. He took the stand that such a coalition was illegal under the Canadian constitution. Norbert Cunningham and the editors at the T&T in general took up the cry that this was illegal. In fact, the constitution doesn't even mention parties.As well, and again despite the views of Cunningham and his wretched paper, the leader of the largest party does not have the right to be prime minister. Indeed, the prime minister is not in the constitution, either.
The editors of the T&T certainly have the right to publish whatever opinon they like. But in this case, they were either ignorant of the Canadian consitution and of Canadian history, or they were lying. It can only be one or the other. There is no middle ground.
If we are ignorant of the issues, it's because our news media have deliberately kept us ignorant - and Norbert has been a lead player. That's why New Brunswick has a Liberal Party that is exactly the same as the Conservative party. And of all of die hard liberals and conservatives out there, not one in ten thousand even knows what the words liberal and conservative mean. And I'm afraid the editors of The T&T aren't a part of the small group that does know.
In another con game, when a handful of people held a protest about the closing of Moncton High, every news medium in the city gave it full coverage. In fact, there was no story. Of a good two thousand or more parents available, there weren't enough parents at the protest for a decent game of dice. There was no story. But all the new media ran it as the big story of the day. Why?
1. Journalists can be like sheep. They follow the herd.
2. For the Times, it was a chance to further villify the school system.
They had been running an intense campaign against the teachers and the education councils. Most of it was lies. The rest was vicious slander. The purpose was to discredit public schools so the Irvings and Ganongs and their friends could step in to suck more money out of the province.
When the Superintendent and the council chairman wrote to correct what the paper had been saying, their letters were published, and the paper laid off a bit. But it never admitted it had been wrong.
All of this time, a major writer for the T&T was a member of the education council. Why was he silent? Who put him on the council? (He obviously knows nothing about education.) Who does he really represent?
I spoke to the council last October. (Of course, the story neve made the T&T). That reporter and at least two other members were linked to corporate New Brunswick. I suspect you would find the pattern through home and school and many other groups in the province.
If our election was boring, Mr. Cunningham, it was so largely because of you and other private news media in the city. It was because of your betrayal of fundamental principles of journalism that we don't know what's going on and, not knowing, don't care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)